My first thought was that they were dumbasses, but then I spent a few minutes thinking about it and started to see their perspective.
"First, it appears that no attempt to request the images be removed was made."
To me, this all hinges on how close the private property is to public property. If the house is plainly and readily visible from public property, then then I think the property owners should bear the responsibility of requesting its removal from the Google imagery (and this case has no merit). If the Google van has to make a special effort to include private property imagery, above and beyond that needed to get the imagery of public property, then the property owners should not have to make the effort. In those cases, Google should not have photographed it to begin with (and the plaintiffs should prevail).
"Second, doing shit like this only makes it worse. If there really was any concern over privacy then this is by far the worst thing you could do to protect it."
So companies or individuals with enough resources to humiliate others should have free reign to do so? This is the crux of personal privacy: violating it makes the victims feel humiliated to the extent that they cannot relax their guard for even one minute. If they feel like the damage has already been done, then pursuing the violators in court is perfectly logical. It's no different than rape victims filing charges against the perpetrator, effectively publicizing an intensely private event, even though the victim would like nothing more than for the whole thing to have never happened.
"Third, I would love so hear how taking pictures of a property devalues it."
It's not the picture itself that devalues the property (since the County has a picture of every piece of property), it's the ability of any uninvited person to freely trespass on private property (something that is supposed to be illegal) in order to get those pictures that are presumably not possible to get from public land. Trespassing should be one of the charges filed against Google (assuming the Google employees did indeed take the photograph on the plaintiffs' property), but probably won't be (at least yet) because criminal charges are much more expensive for individuals to prosecute than civil charges.
"...a criminal charge which would probably be more effective at changing Google's policies than a civil suit - but you can't get any cash out of a criminal charge."
One person winning a $25,000 judgement against Google may also be effective since a large part of Google's success is its corporate image and "do no evil" slogan. If public opinion goes significantly against Google, that may be all it takes for the company to change its policies.
$25,000 hardly screams "free money", considering how much of that will be spent litigating. It seems more like the bare minimum needed to cover costs and expenses.
Again, all of this hinges on the property's location relative to the public view.
"Remember, they sue you becuase your IP address is being used, but if they don't find any corroborating evidence on your computer that you've violated copyright then they have nothing."
I'm sure that will be of great consolation to you as you work for the rest of your life to pay the legal fees you have no chance of settling in six life times. Being not guilty doesn't keep your life from being ruined by the process of proving it.
"Why is it that YOU guys, you/.'ers don't seem to feel the same way???"
Because there are too many ways that unscrupulous people can use my generosity against me, and there are too many unscrupulous people to afford taking the chance.
"...the DRM did not stop piracy, so why pay extra for a mechanism that doesn't work and inconveniences legitimate purchasers?"
This is the exact sequence of events that occurred with early computer games and copy-restricted floppy disks. It didn't stop piracy since cracking programs ran rampant, and it irritated all of the paying customers who had to type in those damn words from the manuals. This is exactly what's meant by people failing to learn from history being doomed to repeat it.
"All we know is that they dropped Linux, that they are a huge Windows retailer, and that some MS rep near Walmart headquarters has them on speed dial."
Normally, I'd be right there with you on this. However, regardless of how many Windows computers Walmart sells, the company is very diversified in its sales and does not depend on Windows for profitability. I think that computer sales are not any more significant a revenue stream for Walmart than any other single department, and is probably insignificant to overall Walmart revenues. As such, Walmart is probably not under Microsoft's control at all, and therefore not susceptible to Microsoft threats.
These are all educated guesses on my part, though.
"But how does [Open Source] make [programmers] better off?"
1) I can't write huge programs by myself. 2) I can't afford to hire other programmers to write huge programs for me. 3) Quality programmers aren't going to work for free (see below). 4) I have a need for software that I am able to modify, copy, and redistribute. 5) Other programmers have the same needs I have, and understand the above. 6) If we work together, we can create the needed software. 7) I won't contribute to your project unless I get access to all the source code, and am free to do what I want with it. 8) You won't contribute to my project unless you get the same rights I demand of you. 9) The rules of Free Software satisfy all of the above requirements, and I acquire significant benefits I could not have achieved any other way (working software that does what I want).
It's a purely capitalistic endeavor, and I do it entirely out of self-interest, using the primary capital I have at my disposal (my time and abilities). It allows me to enter (or create) markets that I could not possibly compete in otherwise. By contributing my own work to FOSS, I help expand the market in which I operate.
It appears that he's never seen Chris Rock's educational video, "How To Not Get Your Ass Kicked By The Police", and has therefore broken rule number 6 (count them during the review session).
"Isn't it possible that the banks are trying to use their sheer size and influence to avoid paying for something that they really ought to?"
Isn't is possible (and probable) that the moment people first discovered scanning and the need to verify a paid check that they almost all simultaneously thought that combining the two would be a great idea? Isn't it possible that the only thing holding back this trivially obvious idea was the cost of storage, and that it was an inevitably obvious use of the two technologies once the price per megabyte of storage decreased to a reasonable level? Isn't it possible that banks around the world thought, and rightfully so, that this is such a painfully obvious idea that it couldn't possibly be patentable?
"While it may be possible to characterise DataTreasury as a "patent troll" by some readings of the term..."
By any reading of the term, DataTreasury is a patent troll. This is an insignificant, obvious idea that should have been laughed out of the patent office on even a cursory reading by anyone even superficially familiar with technology.
"It's too soon to really tell, but there is a feeling it is more stable than our previous Oracle setup."
That's been my experience, too. We've been using PostgreSQL in mission-critical capacities for years (our revenues depend on it), and it hasn't let us down yet. Oracle, on the other hand, has been rather...unpredictable.
"Not one of the security models used in his analogy depends on giving the key to the potential attacker."
There's an even more important distinction that was not mentioned: If I paid for the right to use my car and my house, but I wasn't given the keys and was forbidden from using them, I would be pissed and I would sue. That's what Digital Restrictions Management is all about: taking our money without exchanging the personal use rights that are necessary to use and protect the purchase.
Unfortunately, we've been down this road many times before. A large Microsoft customer wants to renegotiate its Windows licenses, but Microsoft won't cut the price. The customer threatens to dump Windows and go all Linux, and then Microsoft gives substantial discounts on what the customer actually wanted all along.
This sounds like nothing more than another contract renegotiation with Microsoft.
"most of these shooters would be considered pretty good...in 1996."
Unfortunately, the same can be said of most modern commercial games as well. They've all turned into insanely expensive incremental updates on the same game play. Game companies need one of three things (and possibly all three):
1) An innovative new gaming genre along the lines of the switch from 2D to 3D. I'm not holding my breath here. Nintendo has come closest to this with the Wii controller, but this was a glancing blow, and won't last forever.
2) Game players who were born after 1995, and therefore don't know any better. This is cheap and easy to come by, so this is probably where game companies are placing their bets.
3) People with more money than sense. Also fairly easy to come by, but not quite as easy as 2.
This is much more complicated, as GPL contributions for any given program tend to come from inside and outside the U.S. So GPL programs are far more insulated than a RIAA song or Hollywood movie.
"A database file is just data, to be interpreted by a database program. But the database program is just data to be interpreted by the CPU."
You get points for clever-sounding obfuscation. Good job.
A set of data is a program if some automatic mechanism is capable of interpreting that data to provide:
1) Sequencing. 2) Decisions. 3) Iteration.
That is the minimal definition of a program. A collection of semi-random data that is not processable by such an automated mechanism automatically disqualifies that set of data as a program. Diebold's database provides none of the three, so claiming that it qualifies as a computer program is ridiculous on the face of it.
In distinguishing testimonial from non-testimonial acts, the Supreme Court has compared revealing the combination to a wall safe to surrendering the key to a strongbox. See id. at 210, n. 9; see also United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 43 (2000). The combination conveys the contents of one's mind; the key does not and is therefore not testimonial. Doe II, 487 U.S. at 210, n. 9. A password, like a combination, is in the suspect's mind, and is therefore testimonial and beyond the reach of the grand jury subpoena.
"2.2 is buggy, slow, insecure, and sucks compared to the latest kernel."
Linux 2.2 still does the job it was designed to do. The 2.6 is better, but 2.2 is not bad even today. I would have no security qualms about using it if it had all the operational features I need.
The problem with Windows is that it is still largely the same as it was in the past. What Microsoft says about XP today was true about XP when Microsoft was presenting it as the greatest thing ever. It was the same pattern Microsoft used for NT 4. When Microsoft wanted to sell lots of copies of NT 4, it was the greatest thing ever. When Microsoft wanted to sell lots of copies of NT 5, NT 4 suddenly became an unmaintainable clusterfuck and NT 5 became the greatest thing ever. Rinse and repeat for every new version of Windows.
In a few years, Microsoft will want people to send in yet more money, so Vista will suddenly be marketed by Microsoft as an untrustworthy, unreliable, bug-ridden piece o' shit. The problem is that Vista is all those things already, but the Microsoft marketing machine will deny that until the next upgrade cycle is ready.
No, he doesn't have a point. Dvorak is, always has been, and apparently always will be a bloody, flaming idiot.
Not all 3rd world countries are dying of starvation. These computers are not aimed at 3rd world populations that wonder if they are going to survive through the week. There are 3rd world countries with relatively stable food and water, but which lack the education to participate in a computerized world. That is the target market for these introductory computers.
Dvorak has contributed absolutely nothing positive to the computing world. I wish PC Magazine would just shut him the hell up until he achieves at least a double-digit IQ.
"And you're at $420 without buying any meaningful games, at regular retail price."
My Wii (from Toys R Us) in late October of 2007 cost:
$250 for the console. $40(?) for an extra Wiimote. $20 taxes.
I spent a little under $310. The innovative controller on Wii Sports goes a very long way towards replayability, and I don't expect to want a new game for a couple more months. I've turned from a hard-core gamer into a casual gamer, and the PS3 and X-Box have zero appeal to me now. They are both clones of the last three generations of consoles, with nothing new to offer except more pixels (yawn). Been there, done that many times before.
The Wii is the only console that is not a trivial clone of the past as far as game play is concerned. The Cell processor may be an impressive beast, but its power is being completely wasted by the games being made for it. They're all just insignificant cookie-cutter derivatives of the same games that were on the PS2. Ditto for the X-Box (minus the powerful new processor technology).
On the PC front, UT3 and Quake Wars are suffering from the same neglect. The new UT3 engine has some very impressive new features, but the UT3 game is almost the exact same thing as UT2003 and UT2004. Quake Wars was a totally wasted opportunity, and turned out to be all hype and no fun. It's the first time I can remember a new AAA game title being so unbelievably boring due to repeat fatigue that I just couldn't stand it for more than a few days. So much for the claim that the two teams weren't just the same game dressed in different skins.
The Wii extended the life of the dying game industry by a few years, and I'm looking forward to those few years. But unless another Wii-like revolution happens at the end of that period, I'm going to have to sadly watch the most interesting era in computing be lowered into its grave.
"Just like therapists use certain interactive video imagery programs to help people with extreme phobias."
Yes, because we all know that being cured of an irrational fear is the same thing as being turned from a naturally caring member of society into a raging psychopath. [eye-roll]
That's even assuming that the methodology and conclusions of the study are correct. Psychological studies are notorious for the great distance between their conclusions and reality. The complexities of human behavior can be complicated enough to evade understanding for thousands of years. Take the results of these short term studies that defy logic with a galaxy-sized block of salt.
"They upped the price to $1.25. Nobody drinks coke anymore except the people who are REALLY addicted to it."
Or who are smart enough to use hokey religions (buying in 24-packs) and ancient weapons (coolers or workplace refrigerators) to lower their costs to about 33 cents per can. Although to be completely honest, the smart ones already stopped drinking soda altogether.
Slashdot Mirror
My first thought was that they were dumbasses, but then I spent a few minutes thinking about it and started to see their perspective.
"First, it appears that no attempt to request the images be removed was made."
To me, this all hinges on how close the private property is to public property. If the house is plainly and readily visible from public property, then then I think the property owners should bear the responsibility of requesting its removal from the Google imagery (and this case has no merit). If the Google van has to make a special effort to include private property imagery, above and beyond that needed to get the imagery of public property, then the property owners should not have to make the effort. In those cases, Google should not have photographed it to begin with (and the plaintiffs should prevail).
"Second, doing shit like this only makes it worse. If there really was any concern over privacy then this is by far the worst thing you could do to protect it."
So companies or individuals with enough resources to humiliate others should have free reign to do so? This is the crux of personal privacy: violating it makes the victims feel humiliated to the extent that they cannot relax their guard for even one minute. If they feel like the damage has already been done, then pursuing the violators in court is perfectly logical. It's no different than rape victims filing charges against the perpetrator, effectively publicizing an intensely private event, even though the victim would like nothing more than for the whole thing to have never happened.
"Third, I would love so hear how taking pictures of a property devalues it."
It's not the picture itself that devalues the property (since the County has a picture of every piece of property), it's the ability of any uninvited person to freely trespass on private property (something that is supposed to be illegal) in order to get those pictures that are presumably not possible to get from public land. Trespassing should be one of the charges filed against Google (assuming the Google employees did indeed take the photograph on the plaintiffs' property), but probably won't be (at least yet) because criminal charges are much more expensive for individuals to prosecute than civil charges.
"...a criminal charge which would probably be more effective at changing Google's policies than a civil suit - but you can't get any cash out of a criminal charge."
One person winning a $25,000 judgement against Google may also be effective since a large part of Google's success is its corporate image and "do no evil" slogan. If public opinion goes significantly against Google, that may be all it takes for the company to change its policies.
$25,000 hardly screams "free money", considering how much of that will be spent litigating. It seems more like the bare minimum needed to cover costs and expenses.
Again, all of this hinges on the property's location relative to the public view.
"Remember, they sue you becuase your IP address is being used, but if they don't find any corroborating evidence on your computer that you've violated copyright then they have nothing."
/.'ers don't seem to feel the same way???"
I'm sure that will be of great consolation to you as you work for the rest of your life to pay the legal fees you have no chance of settling in six life times. Being not guilty doesn't keep your life from being ruined by the process of proving it.
"Why is it that YOU guys, you
Because there are too many ways that unscrupulous people can use my generosity against me, and there are too many unscrupulous people to afford taking the chance.
"...the DRM did not stop piracy, so why pay extra for a mechanism that doesn't work and inconveniences legitimate purchasers?"
This is the exact sequence of events that occurred with early computer games and copy-restricted floppy disks. It didn't stop piracy since cracking programs ran rampant, and it irritated all of the paying customers who had to type in those damn words from the manuals. This is exactly what's meant by people failing to learn from history being doomed to repeat it.
"All we know is that they dropped Linux, that they are a huge Windows retailer, and that some MS rep near Walmart headquarters has them on speed dial."
Normally, I'd be right there with you on this. However, regardless of how many Windows computers Walmart sells, the company is very diversified in its sales and does not depend on Windows for profitability. I think that computer sales are not any more significant a revenue stream for Walmart than any other single department, and is probably insignificant to overall Walmart revenues. As such, Walmart is probably not under Microsoft's control at all, and therefore not susceptible to Microsoft threats.
These are all educated guesses on my part, though.
"Not sure, but it probably has something to do with miscalculation."
I dated her once, and I've never been quite right ever since.
"But how does [Open Source] make [programmers] better off?"
1) I can't write huge programs by myself.
2) I can't afford to hire other programmers to write huge programs for me.
3) Quality programmers aren't going to work for free (see below).
4) I have a need for software that I am able to modify, copy, and redistribute.
5) Other programmers have the same needs I have, and understand the above.
6) If we work together, we can create the needed software.
7) I won't contribute to your project unless I get access to all the source code, and am free to do what I want with it.
8) You won't contribute to my project unless you get the same rights I demand of you.
9) The rules of Free Software satisfy all of the above requirements, and I acquire significant benefits I could not have achieved any other way (working software that does what I want).
It's a purely capitalistic endeavor, and I do it entirely out of self-interest, using the primary capital I have at my disposal (my time and abilities). It allows me to enter (or create) markets that I could not possibly compete in otherwise. By contributing my own work to FOSS, I help expand the market in which I operate.
It appears that he's never seen Chris Rock's educational video, "How To Not Get Your Ass Kicked By The Police", and has therefore broken rule number 6 (count them during the review session).
"You're exaggerating. There's no way it's more than 99.9999%."
You're both wrong, since it's common knowledge that five nines should be enough for anyone.
"Isn't it possible that the banks are trying to use their sheer size and influence to avoid paying for something that they really ought to?"
Isn't is possible (and probable) that the moment people first discovered scanning and the need to verify a paid check that they almost all simultaneously thought that combining the two would be a great idea? Isn't it possible that the only thing holding back this trivially obvious idea was the cost of storage, and that it was an inevitably obvious use of the two technologies once the price per megabyte of storage decreased to a reasonable level? Isn't it possible that banks around the world thought, and rightfully so, that this is such a painfully obvious idea that it couldn't possibly be patentable?
"While it may be possible to characterise DataTreasury as a "patent troll" by some readings of the term..."
By any reading of the term, DataTreasury is a patent troll. This is an insignificant, obvious idea that should have been laughed out of the patent office on even a cursory reading by anyone even superficially familiar with technology.
"Take bush senior 'no more taxes' or something to that effect."
He said, "no new taxes" in his campaign. Then he signed one of the largest tax increases in U.S. history. I knew he was lying for two reasons:
1) His upper lip was moving.
2) His bottom lip was moving.
To his credit, though, at his worst he was a gazillion times smarter and more trustworthy than his son.
"It's too soon to really tell, but there is a feeling it is more stable than our previous Oracle setup."
That's been my experience, too. We've been using PostgreSQL in mission-critical capacities for years (our revenues depend on it), and it hasn't let us down yet. Oracle, on the other hand, has been rather...unpredictable.
"Autotools, an intractably arcane and grotesquely anachronistic cesspool of ineffable complexity that makes even seasoned programmers nauseous."
They're obviously not very familiar with Autotools. If they were, then they would have used much harsher words to describe it.
"so go ahead, mod me down you fuckers."
I would mod you down, but then you would become more powerful than I could possibly imagine.
"Not one of the security models used in his analogy depends on giving the key to the potential attacker."
There's an even more important distinction that was not mentioned: If I paid for the right to use my car and my house, but I wasn't given the keys and was forbidden from using them, I would be pissed and I would sue. That's what Digital Restrictions Management is all about: taking our money without exchanging the personal use rights that are necessary to use and protect the purchase.
Unfortunately, we've been down this road many times before. A large Microsoft customer wants to renegotiate its Windows licenses, but Microsoft won't cut the price. The customer threatens to dump Windows and go all Linux, and then Microsoft gives substantial discounts on what the customer actually wanted all along.
This sounds like nothing more than another contract renegotiation with Microsoft.
"most of these shooters would be considered pretty good...in 1996."
Unfortunately, the same can be said of most modern commercial games as well. They've all turned into insanely expensive incremental updates on the same game play. Game companies need one of three things (and possibly all three):
1) An innovative new gaming genre along the lines of the switch from 2D to 3D. I'm not holding my breath here. Nintendo has come closest to this with the Wii controller, but this was a glancing blow, and won't last forever.
2) Game players who were born after 1995, and therefore don't know any better. This is cheap and easy to come by, so this is probably where game companies are placing their bets.
3) People with more money than sense. Also fairly easy to come by, but not quite as easy as 2.
This is much more complicated, as GPL contributions for any given program tend to come from inside and outside the U.S. So GPL programs are far more insulated than a RIAA song or Hollywood movie.
"A database file is just data, to be interpreted by a database program.
But the database program is just data to be interpreted by the CPU."
You get points for clever-sounding obfuscation. Good job.
A set of data is a program if some automatic mechanism is capable of interpreting that data to provide:
1) Sequencing.
2) Decisions.
3) Iteration.
That is the minimal definition of a program. A collection of semi-random data that is not processable by such an automated mechanism automatically disqualifies that set of data as a program. Diebold's database provides none of the three, so claiming that it qualifies as a computer program is ridiculous on the face of it.
"This is horrible case law."
You contradict yourself two short sentences later.
"Therefore it should be held under the same rules as getting access to a safe or a house."
It is, and this is where you contradict yourself and support the judge's (correct) conclusion. See oliphaunt's posting above regarding the Supreme Court's decisions in regards to combination safes. For convenience, I'll reproduce the relevant portion of his posting here:
In distinguishing testimonial from non-testimonial acts, the Supreme Court has compared revealing the combination to a wall safe to surrendering the key to a strongbox. See id. at 210, n. 9; see also United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 43 (2000). The combination conveys the contents of one's mind; the key does not and is therefore not testimonial. Doe II, 487 U.S. at 210, n. 9. A password, like a combination, is in the suspect's mind, and is therefore testimonial and beyond the reach of the grand jury subpoena.
"2.2 is buggy, slow, insecure, and sucks compared to the latest kernel."
Linux 2.2 still does the job it was designed to do. The 2.6 is better, but 2.2 is not bad even today. I would have no security qualms about using it if it had all the operational features I need.
The problem with Windows is that it is still largely the same as it was in the past. What Microsoft says about XP today was true about XP when Microsoft was presenting it as the greatest thing ever. It was the same pattern Microsoft used for NT 4. When Microsoft wanted to sell lots of copies of NT 4, it was the greatest thing ever. When Microsoft wanted to sell lots of copies of NT 5, NT 4 suddenly became an unmaintainable clusterfuck and NT 5 became the greatest thing ever. Rinse and repeat for every new version of Windows.
In a few years, Microsoft will want people to send in yet more money, so Vista will suddenly be marketed by Microsoft as an untrustworthy, unreliable, bug-ridden piece o' shit. The problem is that Vista is all those things already, but the Microsoft marketing machine will deny that until the next upgrade cycle is ready.
No, he doesn't have a point. Dvorak is, always has been, and apparently always will be a bloody, flaming idiot.
Not all 3rd world countries are dying of starvation. These computers are not aimed at 3rd world populations that wonder if they are going to survive through the week. There are 3rd world countries with relatively stable food and water, but which lack the education to participate in a computerized world. That is the target market for these introductory computers.
Dvorak has contributed absolutely nothing positive to the computing world. I wish PC Magazine would just shut him the hell up until he achieves at least a double-digit IQ.
"And you're at $420 without buying any meaningful games, at regular retail price."
My Wii (from Toys R Us) in late October of 2007 cost:
$250 for the console.
$40(?) for an extra Wiimote.
$20 taxes.
I spent a little under $310. The innovative controller on Wii Sports goes a very long way towards replayability, and I don't expect to want a new game for a couple more months. I've turned from a hard-core gamer into a casual gamer, and the PS3 and X-Box have zero appeal to me now. They are both clones of the last three generations of consoles, with nothing new to offer except more pixels (yawn). Been there, done that many times before.
The Wii is the only console that is not a trivial clone of the past as far as game play is concerned. The Cell processor may be an impressive beast, but its power is being completely wasted by the games being made for it. They're all just insignificant cookie-cutter derivatives of the same games that were on the PS2. Ditto for the X-Box (minus the powerful new processor technology).
On the PC front, UT3 and Quake Wars are suffering from the same neglect. The new UT3 engine has some very impressive new features, but the UT3 game is almost the exact same thing as UT2003 and UT2004. Quake Wars was a totally wasted opportunity, and turned out to be all hype and no fun. It's the first time I can remember a new AAA game title being so unbelievably boring due to repeat fatigue that I just couldn't stand it for more than a few days. So much for the claim that the two teams weren't just the same game dressed in different skins.
The Wii extended the life of the dying game industry by a few years, and I'm looking forward to those few years. But unless another Wii-like revolution happens at the end of that period, I'm going to have to sadly watch the most interesting era in computing be lowered into its grave.
"Just like therapists use certain interactive video imagery programs to help people with extreme phobias."
Yes, because we all know that being cured of an irrational fear is the same thing as being turned from a naturally caring member of society into a raging psychopath. [eye-roll]
That's even assuming that the methodology and conclusions of the study are correct. Psychological studies are notorious for the great distance between their conclusions and reality. The complexities of human behavior can be complicated enough to evade understanding for thousands of years. Take the results of these short term studies that defy logic with a galaxy-sized block of salt.
"They upped the price to $1.25. Nobody drinks coke anymore except the people who are REALLY addicted to it."
Or who are smart enough to use hokey religions (buying in 24-packs) and ancient weapons (coolers or workplace refrigerators) to lower their costs to about 33 cents per can. Although to be completely honest, the smart ones already stopped drinking soda altogether.
"We are not little children. We are grown-ups who have functional and rational brains."
I think I can faithfully represent the entire religious world when I say, "Speak for yourself!"